edit_video

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions returning 'task id, status, and output URLs,' indicating an asynchronous operation. However, it omits details on idempotency, rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key returns without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain parameters, use cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent underinformed for proper selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25%, yet the description adds zero information about parameters. It does not explain the purpose of parameters like audio_setting, source_video_url, or output_resolution, failing to compensate for the sparse schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it creates a HappyHorse task on RunAPI for editing video, distinguishing it from sibling tools like image_to_video or text_to_video which generate new content. However, it could be more specific about the editing capabilities (e.g., trimming, effects).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use edit_video versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring a source video URL. Usage is implied as 'to edit a video' but no explicit context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.